Talk:Strong array notation
How should this page look? Should it just be definitions? With some examples? A few examples plus a more detailed "Introduction to strong array notation" page? Username5243 (talk) 11:07, July 14, 2016 (UTC) :I definitely think some illustrative examples well help a lot. Just definitions won't be very helpful. Deedlit11 (talk) 13:34, July 14, 2016 (UTC) Agreed. But do you think we should have a separate introduction page like for BEAF and BAN? I would think so. Username5243 (talk) 13:47, July 14, 2016 (UTC) We need more parts Hyp cos need to add more parts after pDDN. My prediction after pDDN is sDDN. AarexWikia04 - 16:42, August 24, 2016 (UTC) :After I make analysis from pDAN to pDDN. I guess pDDN reaches the limit of Taranovsky's n=2 system, but a more formally analysis is still not done. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 03:33, August 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Also redo the anaylsis beyond I(1,0). AarexWikia04 - 16:29, August 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Okay and you analyzed up to s(n,n{1{1{1,,`1``,,2,,}1,2}2}2) (= \(\psi(\Omega_{\Omega_{M+2}}*\omega)\) in my psi function). Googleaarex (talk) 23:05, March 2, 2017 (UTC) We also need pages for the rest of exAN numbers past dimenbolbidex. Username5243 (talk) 16:45, August 24, 2016 (UTC) Case B1? Does s(a,b{2}1{2}1,1,1,2) become s(a,a{2}a{2}a,a,b) or s(a,b{2}1{2}a,a,b) Bubby3 (talk) 01:28, September 22, 2016 (UTC) : s(a,a{2}a{2}a,a,b). LegionMammal978 (talk) 01:37, September 22, 2016 (UTC) ill-defined P-bot, how is it ill-defined? You're literally saying that every powerful notation is ill-defined.12AbBa (talk) 12:08, October 27, 2019 (UTC) He;;s kind of known for doing that, insisting on 100% "formal mathematical language" for everything. I would love to hear why he thinks SAN is ill-defined, and up to what level he thinks it's not. Username5243 (talk) 12:14, October 27, 2019 (UTC) Well, the community as a whole has definitely agreed in the past that everything after Dropping Array Notation (DAN) is ill-defined. Even Hyp cos has acknowledged this fact. But I'm not sure what in DAN and lower is ill-defined. Username5243 (talk) 12:16, October 27, 2019 (UTC) : @12ABa : When did I say that it is known to be ill-defined? Please tell me a precise link and a precise phrase. Well, if "powerful notation" in your context means something like "explanation with contradiction" in your "introduction" to definitions of cardinals, then it is obviously ill-defined. Honestly, do you know the definition of at least one ordinal notation associated to a standard OCF? I asked you this question once here, but you could not answer it. : : @Username5243 : You are unreasonably confounding the lack of the definition with the lack of the proof of the well-definedness. For example, many of your stuffs are ill-defined in the former sense, while the issues on TON and SAN are the latter one. Moreover, I am not insisting on 100%, because nobody can be perfect as far as they are human begings. It is good to know that your stuffs are just 10% formal, and hence googologists who believe that they are well-defined just do not know ordinals. Therefore it is irrelevant to my judgement, although you might not even understand or interested in what are problems in your "definitions". Honestly, do you know the definition of at least one ordinal notation associated to a standard OCF? Are you still insisting to believe that UNOCF has no issue, a sequence (I,M,K,…) makes sense without ambiguity, and it is reasonable for googologists to assume that you have an explicit method to assign to every ordinal α of cofinality Ω the function f which you used in the definition of an FS? : p-adic 12:45, October 27, 2019 (UTC) @pbot: First, why do you keep going after 12AbBa? You bring up the same points every time he tries to do ANYTHING. I mean sure, understanding what he's doing is important, but do you really need to bring it up EVERY. SINGLE. TIME? Secondly, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm doing with UNOCF. Unlike some people here, I never learned much about set theory because I think it's complex. I don't claim to know how "standard" OCFs work past compact cardinals, and frankly I'm not sure anyone else on here does, either. Yes, we all agree UNOCF has problems. Even I stopped pretending it was 100% well-defined some time ago. But I seem to have different priorities when making stuff than you do. I do googology not because I want to do everything in a 100% formal way, bu because I want to have fun. You always want to do stuff in a 100% formal way, and impose this view on others. Which iis fine, but not everyone has a million PhDs in set theory, or whatever. And some people just aren't interested in that stuff. So, if you want to ignore my stuff as "ill-defined", fine. I'm perfectly fine with not being 100% formal, and you need to deal with that. Username5243 (talk) 12:56, October 27, 2019 (UTC) : > First, why do you keep going after 12AbBa? : I point out ill-defineness and mistakes only when I found them. It means that if I point out 12AbBa's errors so many times, it just means that 12AbBa outputs so many errors. : You might underestimate the effect of guys who always output incorrect arguments. They prevent beginners from studying correct facts, and rob them of precious opportunity to learn what are important. : For example, since UNOCF is believed to be the greatest OCF, many googologists give up to understand actual OCFs. How bad is it that googologists who do not even know the definitions of standard OCFs state that UNOCF is much stronger than standard OCFs? : > I don't claim to know how "standard" OCFs work past compact cardinals, and frankly I'm not sure anyone else on here does, either. : Do you even know standard OCFs of lower level? For example, what is the "normal OCF" which you referred to in the definition of UNOCF? : > I do googology not because I want to do everything in a 100% formal way, bu because I want to have fun. : I too. But honestly, do you like to say "My number is the 100-th entry of the sequence (1,100,99999999,…)!" or something like that? What you are doing is the same as it. Could you tell me the 100-th entry of the sequence (I,M,K,…), which you essentially used (in the use of T) in the definition of UNOCF? : > So, if you want to ignore my stuff as "ill-defined", fine. I'm perfectly fine with not being 100% formal, and you need to deal with that. : Should I repeat explaining that I am not requiring 100%? Also, I would like not to ignore your stuffs, because it is serious that many googologists believed that UNOCF is the greatest OCF, which surpassed standard OCFs even though they do not know one of it. Many beginners will believe the statement without knowing issues. : Anyway, could you answer the following questions? # What is the 100-th entry of the sequence (I,M,K,…)? # Do you have an explicit method to assign to every ordinal α of cofinality Ω the function f which you used in the definition of an FS? # Do you know at least one ordinal notation associated to a standard OCF? (I am not restricting it to weakly compact level.) # What is the "normal OCF" which you referred to in the definition of UNOCF? : (I editted a little. Especially, I added the last question.) : p-adic 13:37, October 27, 2019 (UTC) : : : Username5243, it's not about "being 100% formal". It is about making some kind of sense. And when people try to do the really advanced stuff without formal justification, they nearly always end up talking nonsense. Do you really want to be like all those 10-year-olds that come here to spout utter nonsense while totally believing that they are making sense? No, I am not exaggarating. The stuff you're doing with UNOCF is that nonsensical. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. : : Now the real question is: Do you care about making sense? If you don't care, then there's no problem. But (and correct me if I'm wrong) you don't strike me as that kind of person. It seems that you genuinely believe that UNOCF makes at least partial sense, and that you are producing something of value. : : So I don't really get why you insist on being so defensive on this. Do you want to waste your time on b*llsh*t? IF UNOCF was nothing more than a heap of horse-cr*p, wouldn't you want to know about it? : : If it were a project of mine, and a person with knowledge and experience came to me and told me that I'm making a fool of myself, I would certainly listen. I won't blindly accept his verdict, of-course, but I will listen. : : Besides, you don't have to take p-bot's word. Use your common sense. Think of a topic you are very well-versed in (any topic) and try to imagine what would happen if a person tried to dabble in that topic without learning the basics first. Is there ''any ''way that this wouldn't end in a complete disaster? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 14:59, October 27, 2019 (UTC)